For the time being, at least for this article, and as an introduction to this age-old concept, we are to simply deal with the surface: we are advocates for Europeans. Before considering what the Noble Identity is, we must understand why identity matters.
In a homogeneous society, and of course within our community, a discussion of identity seems inelegant; almost without exception it is kept unconscious. Conscious questions of identity first originate in society as subversive means to ends; as questions about strange orientations, minority status, or on building foreign — and often opposing — communities within existing ones. But in a world where we are increasingly losing our identity to mass media, consumerism, and other, more truculent cultures, these discussions are becoming a necessity.
Inevitably, in day-to-day conversations about identity, we demarcate national and racial identity. I am English: I have a nation, but I am also European: I have an overarching identity common to Europeans. This latter expression is something akin to using the word white, but we need not be so austere.
Identity as family
In both cases — national and racial — we are talking about a community and an extended family. Identity is so often in modernity an internalised thing, focused on what you are when completely removed from all “shackles” of society, but identity is something much deeper than base desires: it is a united past, a common blood, and a shared destiny. An Alt-Right podcast some time ago put it thus:
You are from a place; you are rooted, you are grounded and you have an original identity. That comes with, obviously, all the trappings of what that regional identity means; you probably have a dialect of a broader European language group, that comes with a millennial history, a gastronomic tradition, a sartorial tradition, religious traditions.
As an aside, it has been commented that a bold English identity comes up against our common European identity, and that the expressions of the former that we are allowed, such as Brexit, local football or other competitions, are explicitly multi-ethnic. In these terms, it is argued that what is English becomes anything within England, and therefore further shifts our identity away from something our ancestors would recognise.
Of course it is simple to deride expressions of our national identities from across the Atlantic, in the post-European blur that is the mainland United States, but these criticisms are legitimate. Indeed, often, our nationalism is mutually exclusive with the broader European identity, but one might vividly revolt against dropping the epithet Englishman, or Dane, or Frog, and for good reason! Within these national expressions, when they have been healthy, is the spirit that has formed our Language, Art, and in turn, all society.
Still, yet, there are instead those for whom the reverse is true: that their regional or national identity is overtly distinct from the wider European family, and sometimes opposed to it. These are also instincts that we should be rid of, not only for their unhistorical and unspiritual natures, but because these are embarrassing and dividing forces. With heterogeneity, or perhaps hegemony, this discussion might be warranted, but, again, our questions of identity must be directed, clear, and precise.
We are living in an age where identity, only ever Ours, is purposefully blunted. We are told excruciatingly that our identity is inferior, or ridiculously that it does not exist; we are undergoing an erasure the likes of which only occurs during the ultimate downfall of an empire.
And so our identity must be set out every chance we get, and it must be set out in explicitly relational terms; we have to recognise where we have come from, what we have accomplished as a people — as an extended family. And it should consciously be expressed gloriously, or as something glorious, as only befits us.
Identity as honouring blood
We are not allowed to be communal, and instead are drowned in Ego, that liberal monster that makes snivelling and depraved creatures of us; it attempts to force our people to live day-to-day isolated and removed from who we are. This individualism must die. And one of its death knells shall be the animation of our spirits again.
There are emerging men and women who are part of a new paradigmatic movement of Art, as there always must be when the European people are faced with a new foe — which is, in this case, is as much an external force as an internal battle — and within are pure and conscious creators. Albion Bard is one of these men. He is a Poet, a composer of spiritual verse for men of Briton’s blood in terms I will denote as Folk-Art. These are words which you must imbibe and by which you must live:
Through you flows the blessed stream which Chaucer drank, whose fountain of life gave sate to Shakespeare, and the inspiration of Milton, Wordsworth and Tennyson. It is the blood of men who built Buckingham Palace, who raised the great Cathedral on Ludgate Hill, who outdid the Roman, and decided the fate of the world for centuries. Your blood holds the scales of justice for freeborn Englishmen and Common Law. Your blood is the promise of our ancestors who built and fought and lived and died for that promise. Your blood was the blood spilt at Hastings, Bannockburn, Dunkirk and Waterloo. Do you think it can die — that it can fade away with the passing of summer?
No thing is eternal, but by your convixion, you will carry forth the torch of day and life for us. It may not be by us by which the day is eventually won, but by our children or theirs, yet the blood will go on. Hold firm to this, and remember that you are Britons, and will never be slaves.
Friendships formed, and bonds held firm today will echo in the future. Do not take any one day too lightly — do not waste this day, and above all, do not betray your brother or sister in the kin, for in the end, we are here for love of our people and for their hope, not for hatred of others kin. I say speak, discuss, plan, network, but do not give up hope.
Do not give up the blood — it is yours, and the future’s, if we are strong. To all of us around the world I say, may good counsel be with you, good health be in you, and good luck.
We cannot fade away with the passing of summer, we will never be slaves, and our blood is a promise. For our purposes, what is important to know is that we are to raise up and celebrate those qualities which ennoble us. In short, we are to be direct and upfront, in our masculinity and benevolent patriarchy we must be peerless, because only We can be. We must associate like with like, we are to speak truth and we are to only act in these ways which retain our Noble Identity. Do as thine blood wilt.
Identity as God
Finally, the issue of faith is near-inextricably linked to the issue of identity. This deserves more in-depth discussion, and it will be had, but for now, know we must begin to do away with this, or else see one as a symptom of the other: in other words, Religion follows Race. It is not for nothing that many people see their Religion as acting upon their morals, or that their entire character is a representation of their faith, but long, long gone are the days where religious institutions were made up of Noble souls. Conversely, this does nothing the demean or reduce Religion, — how could any comparison with our Race be demeaning? — but instead raises it, and shows that we take it as seriously as it deserves. However, it is prudent to know that Machiavelli, writing in the early 16th century, wherein we might imagine our people to have been sterner, had this to say:
Our Religion has glorified more humble and contemplative men rather than men of action. It also places the highest good in humility, lowliness, and contempt of human things: the other places it in the greatness of soul, the strength of body, and all the other things which make men very brave.
If you find yourself insulted, you might take Religion, here, out of context, to mean modernity, or perhaps even the entire concept of man as something meek. Instead, we turn, hopefully with no embarrassment, to older times, to take after grander, surer men who were fierce in their actions. All of this, but knowing that we can only push forwards, is how we are to continue.
It does not do to possess a spirit which only looks backwards, and this is a curse very common to our movement; Tradition not as perennial but as attempting to reverse a decline. Surely, we must do as Friedrich Nietzsche did: instead of sinking down into the mires of self-pity, of a nihilistic ecstasy apprehending the end times, we must come to the realisation that it is only Action that can accomplish our goals. And it is only in our spirit — in our true spirit, that is Noble Identity — that Action can be directed surely. It took Nietzsche his health and his sanity to learn this, but in the nature of our blood, of the tradition of our conquering spirit, we need not suffer in individuality, but overcome in Race.
5 thoughts on “What is Noble Identity?”
Brilliant the way you conclude pointing the way forward.
“It does not do to possess a spirit which only looks backwards, and this is a curse very common to our movement; Tradition not as perennial but as attempting to reverse a decline.”
I agree. The greatest danger is the inexorable drift towards fantasy, whether in the form of an idealised past or a coming saviour. We need to teach our people to know the world and to act.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To KNOW the world — perfectly put. This is a much broader problem, but you said elsewhere you aim to a realist-idealist perspective; this is precisely the wall I keep coming up against, and end up veering off rather than vaulting it. It is easy to shout that Kant is a dead end — that that sort of thing, “[using] one’s own understanding without another’s guidance,” leads only to individuation, but does it?
Thank you for your continued reading, you’ve given me a lot to think about today and I think this proves engagement hones thinking!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Idealism has come a long way since Kant. I am admittedly influenced more by certain Neo-Kantian thinkers (Dilthey) and phenomenologists (Husserl, Heidegger) than Kant himself. Both Dilthey and Heidegger go a long way to introducing history and heritage into human experience.
One might (and with some justification) argue that Heidegger is not an idealist in any meaningful sense nor a Neo-Kantian (because he was against the Cartesian mind-body dualism). Heidegger held that our engagement with the world is prior to our reflection on the world. Descartes’ Cogito, he would hold, is really an artificial abstraction because the consciousness is always conscious of something and so while we can think of consciousness in the abstract we can only do so by removing it from lived experience. And in the world of lived experience we always have a past, our understanding of the world is already conditioned. We know things not as empirical phenomena (texture, colour, and so on) but as “things” which are already conditioned by our being-with (such as a chair, we understand it by our lived relation to it, not as its empirical qualities and dimensions).
Where I would argue (possibly against the grain) that idealism comes in, is that we are always projected towards a future (and thrown out of a past). It is that projection which I am talking about when I talk about idealism.
For better or worse, my fiction is significantly more philosophical than my blog posts which I at least try to write for a more general, if intellectual, audience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mean to disparage Kant’s enlightenment-isms, his slavish relationship to reason-above-all, and will do so in a later article! What a layered and history-rooted thing is man.
I have read a little Heidegger, but that Nietzsche reached the same conclusions means I owe it to myself to read much more: “Heraclitus will remain eternally right: the ‘apparent’ world is the only world: the ‘true world’ is no more than a false adjunct thereto,” also worth mentioning his Moloch of abstraction. This projection you talk of has something in it of Becoming, which could be said to be a side of the senses which is history-conscious.
And I am glad you mentioned your fiction. I have seen written that you’re working on something; I write fiction myself and would be very interested if we could swap pieces for critique (and ever improvement).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did get your criticism of Kant. I hoped to salvage idealism in my response and suggest that history is now properly accounted for. Not only in projection but in heritage through language and our understanding of a lived world which is handed down by our family and broader culture.
I think it would be beneficial to have an informal discussion together about our ideas. Things like our goals, perhaps a bit about our influences and development. You mentioned here about sharing our writing and earlier something about collaborating by writing a few articles and putting out a pamphlet or something of that nature.
It is definitely worth knowing other intelligent and aware thinkers and artists. You can definitely consider me as an ally in your endeavours.